Koatanga wrote:If the first openly gay player in the NFL draft is taken by one of the teams going to the Super Bowl, which is held in Arizona this coming year, can they deny him entrance to the stadium on the basis of him being gay?

Koatanga wrote:The NFL moved a Super Bowl from Arizona to Pasadena when Arizona refused to acknowledge Martin Luther King Day. I wonder if the game could move again due to this law since AZ is hosting this year, and homosexuality in the league is currently a hot topic.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/ne ... ?eref=sihpEven as momentum continues to build against Arizona's controversial bill that would allow businesses to deny service to gay couples on religious grounds, the NFL on Wednesday morning began investigating the necessary steps to move next season's Super Bowl from the Phoenix area, if the proposal becomes law, a source close to the situation confirmed.

Amirya wrote:Yep. Some of us here in AZ are waiting for Brewer's next move, but it seems to be pretty much agreed on that she'll veto the bill.

VETOED.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

Amirya wrote:Yep. Some of us here in AZ are waiting for Brewer's next move, but it seems to be pretty much agreed on that she'll veto the bill.

VETOED.

GOOD.

And Texas AG Greg Abbott is already planning an appeal for the Federal ruling calling Same Sex marriage ban in Texas

This is the jerkass that is pushing for blocking ADA related lawsuits when it pertains to state buildings, in spite of being in a wheelchair, saying it costs too much money to the state to be ADA complaint -- nevermind he sued for 10M the owner of the house whose tree crippled him.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

There is no Carol Foyler in the Arizona State Legislature. In fact, there is no one named Carol, nor anyone named Foyler in either the Senate or the House.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

But economic reasons were probably one of the biggest reasons Jan Brewer indeed vetoed the bill. Consider Apple and NFL rumblings of relocating their big things (a manufacturing plant and the SUPERB Owl) if the bill were to pass. It would have been a big damage to Arizona's reputation and could be the first of several other big companies to decide to move a big bulk of their business outside state lines.

The economic loss would be huge and the fault would be squarely on the republicans.

Koatanga wrote:So Apple is cool doing business in China, but Arizona is crossing the line.

I think its more an issue of "Apple know it can actually influence policies in AZ, where they cannot in chine" (by chosing to do business or not)

It seems to be obviously about money if you look at it objectively. There isn't big financial gains for setting up shop in AZ. There's plenty of competition around the US if you want to keep things here.

It's no big surprise that this became public as that just adds to the financial consideration of the move. Whereas in China, the financial costs don't yet outweigh the moral costs, and Apple is happy to keep exploiting that.

If I'm remembering my social history right, romantic love is a fairly new concept in the grand scheme of human history - it used to be for economics and politics and social status. "It's easier to love a rich man as it is a poor man, blah blah blah." And religion only came along into it as a means of gaining followers - "well of course it's about <insert deity of choice>, because then it's blessed!" Which really meant, "we'll approve it for the sake of your offspring, because if they marry well/higher than they are/to someone with political power, then it will be good for us!"

As I recall, Charlemagne was a huge force behind Christianity first becoming widespread, and as I recall, the Church had nothing to say about his alleged refusal to allow his daughters to marry (political reasons), and he was A-OK with the grandchildren they gave him.

So maybe the Church came into the issue of wedlock children later? I dunno.

(I still await a logical answer to, "if marriage is for procreation, which is why gays should not be permitted to marry, then why are the infertile and the elderly permitted?")

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

It is, and it's a really stupid reason, too. I was commenting on the quote itself, since I can't view the video at work.

I still think that marriage, as an institution, should go the way of the dodo bird. If no one can marry, then no one can be upset about what same-sex spouses do.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

Io.Draco wrote:There should be a basic IQ test for those wanting to become politicians.

Anyone who wants to become a politician should be barred from politics.

That would lead to anarchy (unless you believe in an absolutist technocracy of course).

Ignoring the obvious tongue-in-cheek, I'd agree - it's usually those that have accepted to take command by being dragged kicking and screaming that make the absolute best leadership, provided they have enough decency to actually try their best. I remember reluctantly taking command a couple times, and those usually becoming my greatest successes.

But, sadly, those that WANT the power and that risk losing it fairly often make the second-best option, as they'll spend a good amount of time making sure they won't be kicked out, which usually implies doing some good work.

When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Koatanga wrote:Anyone who wants to become a politician should be barred from politics.

That would lead to anarchy (unless you believe in an absolutist technocracy of course).

Ignoring the obvious tongue-in-cheek, I'd agree - it's usually those that have accepted to take command by being dragged kicking and screaming that make the absolute best leadership, provided they have enough decency to actually try their best. I remember reluctantly taking command a couple times, and those usually becoming my greatest successes.

But, sadly, those that WANT the power and that risk losing it fairly often make the second-best option, as they'll spend a good amount of time making sure they won't be kicked out, which usually implies doing some good work.

Oh, I agree with that.But being a politician os so much more than wanting power.

I'll use myself as an example (so as not to walk into a strawman). I got invovled in my housing association because I was asked if I would come be part of the section board - mostly due to having brought written suggestions of change to teh suggestions there, I accepted and instead of becoming a supplementing member, I was asked from the crowd to make myself available for the actual board (I did, as I believe saying yse to being an alternate, means accepting that you need to step up if needed), and was elected to it. Everything we do in the housing association is politics, and most of the poeple in the section boards are there because they want to make a (to them) positive difference / change - yes there are those that want to sit in a chair (or at the head of the table) because they want the power - they are terrible at being there.For partisan politics, I decided that I wanted to step up, I decided that I wanted to be a candidate for municipal elections, and I decided to apply to the partys national comittee for the politic areas I wanted to influence. Thats the opposite, but in partisan politics, you will hardly ever get asked to step up, too many people are wanting the chair for most people to go looking for someone that isn't clamoring, so you have to throw your name in the hat yourself if you want to be able to influence things.

There are certainly bad politicians, and certainly a lot of people are there for the power, but (at least in europe's multiparty systems) most of a prtys ideas and influence starts out from wanting to influence change (be it through evolution or revolution) - if you barred anyone from politics who wanted to influence change, we would have anarchy, or at least apathy (and de facto anarchy, as noone who wanted to set down lthe laws, or make sure "the trains run on time" would be allowed to get there - and with abar, many more people would want to get in, because noone was there.

(Again, excepting ideas like technocratic or meritocratic rule, where you don't get to rule based on ambition to rule, but you get to decide/influence areas that you have achieved merit - just be aware that doesn't prevent ambitious people, quite the opposite as in a meritocratic/technocratic rule, they would have a clear path to the top)